Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Manrique v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Manrique v. United States
Reference: 15-7250
Issue: Appellate procedure
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: October 11, 2016
Decided: April 19, 2017
Outcome
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
Vote
6-2 to affirm
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor


Manrique v. United States is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2016. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On April 19, 2017, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas for a six-justice majority, the court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In the case, the court held that a criminal defendant cannot use a single notice of appeal, filed after an initial judgment, to raise an appellate challenge to a restitution award imposed later in an amended judgment. Instead, the defendant must also file a notice of appeal to the amended judgment; otherwise, if the government objects to the defendant's failure to file a notice of appeal to the amended judgment, then the defendant is barred from challenging the restitution order on appeal.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Marcelo Manrique challenged a restitution order and judgment imposed as part of his criminal sentence for possession of material involving sexual exploitation of minors.
  • The issue: On appeal, must a petitioner file separate notices of appeal for both a sentence imposing restitution and for a subsequent amended judgment imposing a specified restitution amount?
  • The outcome: On April 19, 2017, the court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.


    • In brief: In this case, the petitioner, Marcelo Manrique, challenged the U.S. government's assertion that because he failed to file an appeal of an amended judgment ordering a specific amount of restitution, he waived his right to appeal that judgment. Manrique contended that his initial and timely appeal of the criminal sentence that imposed an unspecified amount of restitution, and which was entered before the amended judgment, should have covered the amended judgment containing the specified restitution award as well and, therefore, a secondary appeal of the specific restitution award was not required under federal rules of procedure. Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court was held on October 11, 2016.

    You can review the Eleventh Circuit's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    After pleading guilty to one count of possession of material involving sexual exploitation of minors in violation of U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(b), a federal district court sentenced Marcelo Manrique on June 23, 2014, to 72 months imprisonment, a life term of supervised release, and the court ordered Manrique to pay a special assessment of $100. The court also noted that while restitution was mandatory in the case, "the victims' losses had yet to be ascertained." The district court entered its judgment the next day, June 24, 2014. The judgment memorialized the prison sentence, supervised release, and special assessment, but listed the amount of restitution as $0.00. The judgment indicated that the "determination of restitution [wa]s deferred" and that an amended judgment would be entered into the record after the determination of restitution was made. The restitution hearing was scheduled for August 22, 2014. In a timely appeal made on July 8, 2014, Manrique appealed the final judgment and sentence made on June 24, 2014, by the district court. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged receipt of the appeal on July 9, 2014, and issued a single appellate case number accordingly.[2][3]

    After a postponement, the district court held a restitution hearing on September 17, 2014. The federal prosecutor informed the court that only one of the victims sought restitution. The victim's attorney introduced evidence under seal, including the victim's affidavit, which explained the trauma the victim suffered. The victim sought between $11,980 and $16,400 in compensatory damages. The defense objected, contending that the affidavit "was boilerplate, inaccurate, erroneous, and excessive" and that the government failed to meet the required burden of proof. The defense claimed that, because the government failed to show a causal link between Manrique's conduct and the victim's harm, restitution should be set at zero dollars. The district court rejected that argument. The district court, in reviewing the evidence of the victim's treatment, concluded that it was reasonable to assess restitution at $100 per image found on Manrique's computer. Based on the number of images of the victim found on Manrique's computer, the court verbally ordered Manrique to pay $4,500 in restitution. The district court subsequently entered an amended judgment on September 18, 2014, that was identical to the judgment entered on June 24, 2014, with the exception of specifying the restitution amount. On September 23, 2014, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged receipt of the amended judgment and filed the judgment with other materials under the same appellate case number pertaining to Manrique's pending appeal, which he filed in July of 2014.[2][3]

    Prior to his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Manrique and the United States briefed the court of the issues on appeal[,] including Manrique's challenge to the restitution imposed by the district court. The government argued that Manrique failed to file a second notice of appeal that incorporated the amended judgment for restitution and that Manrique's failure "operated as a waiver of his right to appeal the district court's order of restitution."[2][3]

    In a July 15, 2015, per curiam opinion from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the court affirmed both the district court's judgment regarding Manrique's prison sentence and supervised release. However, the court determined sua sponte that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the district court's restitution award. The court referenced a 2014 decision of the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Muzio, which held that a "judgment imposing a prison sentence and restitution but leaving the specific amount of restitution unsettled is immediately appealable." However, the court in Muzio acknowledged,[1]

    “

    when courts enter sentencing judgments ordering restitution but deferring determination of the amount, defendants have the option to either (a) timely appeal from the initial judgment and then, if desired, timely appeal from the subsequent judgment finalizing the amount of restitution, or (b) timely appeal from the subsequent judgment only, in which case all issues will be heard in a single appeal. We do not have jurisdiction to entertain Manrique’s challenge to his restitution amount because he did not file a notice of appeal designating the amended judgment setting forth the restitution amount ... Under Muzio, Manrique was required to either appeal both the original judgment and the amended judgment, or appeal the amended judgment only ... Instead, he appealed only the original judgment. [4]

    		”

    Because of this failure to appeal both the original and amended judgment, or to appeal the amended judgment only, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Manrique's appeal of the restitution order for want of jurisdiction. Manrique appealed to the Eleventh Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari on April 25, 2016.[1][5]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Manrique challenged the application of a federal rule of appellate procedure, Rule 4(b)(2), as to how many notices are required to "perfect" an appeal of a judgment and sentence of restitution imposed under a federal law governing the restitution award in this case, the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Dolan v. United States that federal district courts could determine precise restitution awards subsequent to entering a judgment mandating restitution, but the justices acknowledged that "the interaction of [deferred] restitution orders with appellate time limits could have consequences." One unanswered question from Dolan, according to Manrique, is the number of notices of appeal that are required to "perfect" an appeal of a judgment imposing sentence (including restitution) and a subsequent amended judgment entered that specifies the details of the restitution award.[3]

    In Manrique's view, under Rule 4(b)(2), only one notice of appeal was required to appeal a restitution sentence and award made under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. Manrique argued that his position was shared by every other federal appellate court except for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The government countered that Manrique's argument contradicted both the text and purpose of Rule 4(b)(2), arguing that Manrique should have known to appeal a deferred mandatory restitution award that was set at zero dollars after the initial sentence and judgment was imposed. The government also rejected Manrique's assertion that his failure to file a secondary appeal was "harmless error."[3][2]

    Certiorari granted

    On December 2, 2015, petitioner Marcelo Manrique initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Manrique's certiorari request on April 25, 2016. Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on October 11, 2016.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    Should the Court grant certiorari to resolve the significant division among the circuits concerning the jurisdictional prerequisites for appealing a deferred restitution award made during the pendency of a timely appeal of a criminal judgment imposing sentence, a question left open by the Court's decision in Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 618 (2010)? [5]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]


    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a six-justice majority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The court held that a criminal defendant cannot use a single notice of appeal, filed after an initial judgment, to raise an appellate challenge to a restitution award imposed later in an amended judgment. Instead, the defendant must also file a notice of appeal to the amended judgment; otherwise, if the government objects to the defendant's failure to file a notice of appeal to the amended judgment, then the defendant is barred from challenging the restitution order on appeal.[8]

    Opinion

    After a review of the procedural history of the case, Justice Clarence Thomas outlined the procedural rules under which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Manrique's petition to challenge the restitution order under the amended judgment on appeal. Justice Thomas wrote,[8]

    “

    To secure appellate review of a judgment or order, a party must file a notice of appeal from that judgment or order. Filing a notice of appeal transfers adjudicatory authority from the district court to the court of appeals. The statute that governs appeals of criminal sentences, 18 U.S.C. §3742(a), provides that a 'defendant may file a notice of appeal in the district court for review of an otherwise final sentence' in certain specified circumstances. ... And Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a)(1) specifies that '[a]n appeal permitted by law as of right ... may betaken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4.' ... Both §3742(a) and Rule 4 contemplate that the defendant will file the notice of appeal after the district court has decided the issue sought to be appealed. Section 3742(a)(1) permits the defendant to file a notice of appeal of a sentence that 'was imposed in violation of law.' ... And Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i) provides generally that, '[i]n a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 days after ... the entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed.' ...

    Petitioner filed only one notice of appeal, which preceded by many months the sentence and judgment imposing restitution. His notice of appeal could not have been 'for review' of the restitution order, §3742(a), and it was not filed within the timeframe allowed by Rule 4. He thus failed to properly appeal under the statute and the Rules the amended judgment imposing restitution. ... The requirement that a defendant file a timely notice of appeal from an amended judgment imposing restitution is at least a mandatory claim-processing rule. ... Unlike jurisdictional rules, mandatory claim-processing rules may be forfeited 'if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.' ... If a party 'properly raise[s] them,' however, they are 'unalterable.' ... The Government timely raised petitioner’s failure to file a notice of appeal from the amended judgment imposing restitution before the Court of Appeals. ... Accordingly, 'the court’s duty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory.'[4]

    		”

    Based on the court's view that the dismissal of Manrique's appeal was proper, the court affirmed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.[8]

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed in this case.

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg noted that a failure on the part of the district court clerk to provide notice of the restitution amount contained in the amended judgment should provide Manrique an opportunity to challenge the order on appeal. In her words,[8]

    “

    The Government agrees that the District Court was 'absolutely' required to advise Manrique of his right to appeal the restitution order ... Aware of its obligation to advise Manrique of his right to appeal, the District Court appears to have assumed that no second notice was required to place the restitution amount before the Court of Appeals. Without awaiting another appeal notice, the District Court clerk transmitted the amended judgment, five days after its entry, to the Court of Appeals, which filed that judgment on the docket of the appeal from the conviction and sentence already pending in that court. In turn, the Eleventh Circuit’s clerk asked the District Court reporter to send up the transcript of, and record from, the restitution hearing. ... I would treat the clerk’s transmission of the amended judgment as tantamount to, or effectively doing service for, a second appeal notice.[4]

    		”


    The opinion

    Filings

    The court granted Manrique's certiorari request on April 25, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' filings

    • Marcelo Manrique, the petitioner, filed his merits brief on July 8, 2016.
    • The United States, the respondent, filed its merits brief on September 1, 2016.
    • Manrique filed a reply brief on the merits on September 30, 2016.

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Marcelo Manrique, the petitioner, filed his petition for certiorari on December 2, 2015.
    • The United States of America, the respondent, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on March 4, 2016, after the court granted two orders extending time to file.

    See also


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, "United States of America v. Marcelo Manrique," decided July 15, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Manrique v. United States - Brief of the United States of America, September 1, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Manrique v. United States - Brief of Marcelo Manrique, July 8, 2016
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Manrique v. United States, April 25, 2016
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Manrique v. United States, argued October 11, 2016
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Manrique v. United States, argued October 11, 2016
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Marcelo Manrique v. United States, decided April 19, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Manrique_v._United_States&oldid=8891662"